Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 319
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Do you believe in: Open borders or having limits or caps for immigration on a yearly basis? That immigration should be followed within the law? Amensty?

    I am interested and curious on what racist roots was the immigration laws based on that results in discrimination between immigrants going thru the legal process? Do you have a cite as I would interested in reading up on this.
    Of course we should control immigration, just not by race or nationality, but as I said, that is unlikely to happen in our lifetime. If you ask me, we should have a policy similar to Canada where each potential immigrant is judged on his or her own merits and or qualifications.

    The policy that we have now was literally formed with the intention of reducing the number of undesirable races of people in America, and was reformed in the 1960s to "maintain the racial makeup" of America. Which is how the policy stands now. Do a search for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and it's reformation during the 1960s civil rights movement.

    It is easy to angrily demand to call migrant workers "illegal aliens" or demand that they go home, or that the "follow the law like everybody else", but it ignores the fact that the "law" is morally bankrupt on its face.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am here without the proper documents, I have not followed the law this country has in place, you owe it to me to allow me to be a citizen immediatly.
    And if you don't, I'll call you a racist!
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It is easy to angrily demand to call migrant workers "illegal aliens" or demand that they go home, or that the "follow the law like everybody else", but it ignores the fact that the "law" is morally bankrupt on its face.
    If you think so then work to change the law. Don't advocate breaking it! And no, not all migrant farm workeres are illegal aliens--BUT MANY ARE! Don't try to confuse the two.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    Of course we should control immigration, just not by race or nationality, but as I said, that is unlikely to happen in our lifetime. If you ask me, we should have a policy similar to Canada where each potential immigrant is judged on his or her own merits and or qualifications.

    The policy that we have now was literally formed with the intention of reducing the number of undesirable races of people in America, and was reformed in the 1960s to "maintain the racial makeup" of America. Which is how the policy stands now. Do a search for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and it's reformation during the 1960s civil rights movement.

    It is easy to angrily demand to call migrant workers "illegal aliens" or demand that they go home, or that the "follow the law like everybody else", but it ignores the fact that the "law" is morally bankrupt on its face.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    If you think so then work to change the law. Don't advocate breaking it! And no, not all migrant farm workeres are illegal aliens--BUT MANY ARE! Don't try to confuse the two.
    I never said a single thing in your entire response.

    And by the way, I think the Amnesty idea is coming from the Texas Rancher in the White House, not from me.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/02/2006 at 04:03 PM.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Not sure why you felt the need to express the difference in semmantics.....
    I think he wanted to challenge my throne as reigning "king of stating the obvious"

    People throw terms around without appreciating (or even caring about) their meaning. The whole matter is about legal status. The people about whom the discussion whirls are those who have taken up residence and/or employement in this country outside of the agreed upon process and procedure. It is inaccurate to describe them as immigrants. Likewise, the adjective "undocumented" does not correct that inaccuracy.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I never said a single thing in your entire response.

    And by the way, I think the Amnesty idea is coming from the Texas Rancher in the White House, not from me.
    I do think you were confusing the terms.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I think he wanted to challenge my throne as reigning "king of stating the obvious"

    People throw terms around without appreciating (or even caring about) their meaning. The whole matter is about legal status. The people about whom the discussion whirls are those who have taken up residence and/or employement in this country outside of the agreed upon process and procedure. It is inaccurate to describe them as immigrants. Likewise, the adjective "undocumented" does not correct that inaccuracy.
    Thank you!
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The protest was kinda like the thread threatening a lawsuit against Palm beause the 650 does not have Wi-Fi.
    Only on TC........
    Trust me, I'm a producer.
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    People throw terms around without appreciating (or even caring about) their meaning. The whole matter is about legal status. The people about whom the discussion whirls are those who have taken up residence and/or employement in this country outside of the agreed upon process and procedure. It is inaccurate to describe them as immigrants. Likewise, the adjective "undocumented" does not correct that inaccuracy.
    • First, use any name you like.
    • Second, you just answered what and how not so much about the why. I'm sure the why has a little more to do with anger.
    • Third, you're wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

    Main Entry: im·mi·grant
    Pronunciation: 'i-mi-gr&nt
    Function: noun
    One that immigrates : as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/immigrants
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course we should control immigration, just not by race or nationality, but as I said, that is unlikely to happen in our lifetime. If you ask me, we should have a policy similar to Canada where each potential immigrant is judged on his or her own merits and or qualifications.
    Actually there have been several security briefings on the the threat and possible solutions that Canada's lax immigration policies forces the USA to consider and possibly face. As you said Canada will let nearly anyone who asks in. Then it is really easy to jump over to the States via Canada. Easy road for a group of terrorists. Not necessarily a good thing, IMHO. What do you think will happen if the next terrorist attack is a nuke in Chicago and all of them came thru Canada nearly none existent immigration process?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The policy that we have now was literally formed with the intention of reducing the number of undesirable races of people in America, and was reformed in the 1960s to "maintain the racial makeup" of America. Which is how the policy stands now. Do a search for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and it's reformation during the 1960s civil rights movement.
    Yes there was the Chinese Exclusion Act....the only immigration act to focus on one ethnic group BTW.....warning history note coming and is not a lessen only looking at the Act you mentioned in it's historical context, so Blaze if not interest then scroll down to next comment.....

    When the act was passed in 1882, it was during a time when the USA had accepted hundreds of thousands or more of Chinese that were fleeing their own country to try to escape extreme poverty after the Taiping Rebellion. Once the gold rush and railroad jobs started to become more scarce and more competitive, there was a lot of culture resentment and gov concern because the huge amounts of immigrating Chinese were taking jobs away from Americans either already here or born here. The Immigration Act of 1965 (abolishing the national-origin quotas) did allow large amounts of Chinese back in. Yes there were racial issues with the Chinese Exclusion Act, but there were also strong economic and civil issues as well.

    An annual limitation of 170,000 visas was established for immigrants from Eastern Hemisphere countries with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    In the Democratic controlled Congress, the House of Representatives voted 326 to 69 in favor of the act while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation into law.

    Legacy
    Many people feel that this act dramatically changed the face of American society by making it a multicultural nation. Prior to the act the United States was primarily a nation comprised of white Europeans and African Americans. Since the implementation of the law the relative proportion of the white population has been in steady decline. Hispanics have replaced African Americans as the largest racial minority in the U.S. Increasing numbers of Asian immigrants began arriving after the INS Act raised the number of immigrants allowed set by the Magnuson Act, renewing Asian communities that had nearly died out. The major source of immigration to the United States since 1965 has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia, reversing the trend since the founding of the nation. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Europe accounted for 50 percent of U.S. immigration during the decade fiscal years 1955 to 1964, followed by North America at 35 percent, and Asia at eight percent. In fiscal year 1988, Asia was highest at 41 percent, followed by North America at 39 percent, and Europe at 10 percent. In order, the countries exceeding 20,000 immigrants in fiscal year 1988 were Mexico, the Philippines, Haiti, Korea, India, mainland China, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and Jamaica.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1965
    It does seem that after that single act was repealed, that for the last 41 years, it has remained extremely diverse and non discriminator to either ethnicity or nationality.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It is easy to angrily demand to call migrant workers "illegal aliens" or demand that they go home, or that the "follow the law like everybody else", but it ignores the fact that the "law" is morally bankrupt on its face.
    I don't think I angrily demanded anything, but politely gave due respect where deserved and calmly expressed my opinion of those breaking the law. It appears that many LEGAL Immigrants share a similar view as I expressed above. Today on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, I have heard several ethnic group leaders, street interviews, etc... speaking out against Illegal Immigration and FOR legal immigration. That this outcry that their illegal acts be acknowledged under the law is a slap in the face to them and threatens their lively hood that they worked so hard for thru legal means.

    This is NOT about race or nationality....it is about abiding by or breaking the law.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/02/2006 at 05:13 PM.
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Actually there have been several security briefings on the the threat and possible solutions that Canada's lax immigration policies forces the USA to consider and possibly face. As you said Canada will let nearly anyone who asks in. Then it is really easy to jump over to the States via Canada. Easy road for a group of terrorists. Not necessarily a good thing, IMHO. What do you think will happen if the next terrorist attack is a nuke in Chicago and all of them came thru Canada nearly none existent immigration process?

    Yes there was the Chinese Exclusion Act....the only immigration act to focus on one ethnic group BTW.....warning history note coming...Blaze if not interest then scroll down to next comment.....

    When the act was passed in 1882, it was during a time when the USA had accepted hundreds of thousands or more of Chinese that were fleeing their own country to try to escape extreme poverty after the Taiping Rebellion. Once the gold rush and railroad jobs started to become more scarce and more competitive, there was a lot of culture resentment and gov concern because the huge amounts of immigrating Chinese were taking jobs away from Americans either already here or born here. The Immigration Act of 1965 (the national-origin quotas) did allow large amounts of Chinese back in. Yes there were racial issues but there were also strong economic and civil issues as well.

    It does seem that after that single act was repealed, that for the last 41 years, it has remained extremely diverse and non discriminator to either ethnicity or nationality.

    I don't think I angrily demanded anything, but politely gave due respect where deserved and calmly expressed my opinion of those breaking the law. It appears that many LEGAL Immigrants share a similar view as I expressed above. Today on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, I have heard several ethnic group leaders, street interviews, etc... speaking out against Illegal Immigration and FOR legal immigration. That this outcry that their illegal acts be acknowledged under the law is a slap in the face to them and threatens their lively hood that they worked so hard for thru legal means.

    This is NOT about race or nationality....it is about abiding by or breaking the law.
    You have mischaracterized almost everything I have said.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Of course we should control immigration, just not by race or nationality, [snip]
    If we don't control it by nationality, then who do we imigrate? Americans.

    The op word is control. Not profile!

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You have mischaracterized almost everything I have said.
    Okay:

    You said: If you ask me, we should have a policy similar to Canada where each potential immigrant is judged on his or her own merits and or qualifications

    I disagreed and said Canada's immigration policy offers security risks.

    You said: The policy that we have now was literally formed with the intention of reducing the number of undesirable races of people in America, and was reformed in the 1960s to "maintain the racial makeup" of America. Which is how the policy stands now. Do a search for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and it's reformation during the 1960s civil rights movement.

    I agreed there were recial issues, but also economic and civil issues as well......not just an attempt to "maintain the racial makeup" of America

    You Said: It is easy to angrily demand to call migrant workers "illegal aliens" or demand that they go home, or that the "follow the law like everybody else", but it ignores the fact that the "law" is morally bankrupt on its face.

    I said I was angree and had high respect for immigrants who followed the law of the land they wanted to live in. It is not about race or nationality but about following the law or breaking it.


    Where did I mischaracterized what you said (not maybe what you thought were saying)?????
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Actually there have been several security briefings on the the threat and possible solutions that Canada's lax immigration policies forces the USA to consider and possibly face. As you said Canada will let nearly anyone who asks in. Then it is really easy to jump over to the States via Canada. Easy road for a group of terrorists. Not necessarily a good thing, IMHO. What do you think will happen if the next terrorist attack is a nuke in Chicago and all of them came thru Canada nearly none existent immigration process?
    I said that "Canada will let nearly anyone who asks in"? If i said that, then I am a fool because that is just silly.

    I said that Canada has an immigration policy based on the individual qualifications of the immigrant without respect to his race or national origin, and that it was a policy that I think the United States should adopt as well.

    I cant see how this is related to security screening of potential immigrants, but even if it was, you have it backwards, it is the immigration policy of the United States that has the security holes. The United States for example strictly controls immigration from certain Nations, and completely removes restrictions on others.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    • First, use any name you like.
    • Second, you just answered what and how not so much about the why. I'm sure the why has a little more to do with anger.
    • Third, you're wrong.
    He said "inaccurate" not incorrect. They are immigrants in that they are migrating. But they are not just immigrants, they are, more accurately, illegal immigrants.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

    Main Entry: im·mi·grant
    Pronunciation: 'i-mi-gr&nt
    Function: noun
    One that immigrates : as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/immigrants
    Britannica online:

    alien
    Encyclopędia Britannica
    Page 1 of 1


    in national and international law, a foreign-born resident who is not a citizen by virtue of parentage or naturalization and who is still a citizen or subject of another country.

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The Immigration Act of 1965 (abolishing the national-origin quotas) did allow large amounts of Chinese back in. Yes there were racial issues with the Chinese Exclusion Act, but there were also strong economic and civil issues as well.

    It does seem that after that single act was repealed, that for the last 41 years, it has remained extremely diverse and non discriminator to either ethnicity or nationality.
    The United States currently sets a different policy for each Nationality of immigrant.

    A man wishing to immigrate to the United States from Finland to be with his sister who is an american citizen for example only needs to fill out a form and enter.

    A man wishing to immigrate to the United States from Mexico or the Philippines to be with his sister who is a US Citizen has to fill out a form and enter his name on an 8 year waiting list.

    Forgive me if I dont share your sentiments about the fairness of the US Immigration policy.

    The point i made about the Canadian Immigration policy was that Canada has One Policy For Everyone. The Canadian policy is a point system whereby the appilcant gets points for speaking the national languages, for educatioin, for working in a field that Canada is in need of, and for pre arranging his or her employment. The applicant is also required to have enough money to support him / her self, last i looked i think it was around 15 thousand dollars.

    added:
    I cannot see how adopting a fair policy such as this would preclude or exclude any security checks that were needed. In fact, as far as I am concerned, we could have even more.
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/02/2006 at 05:49 PM.
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    He said "inaccurate" not incorrect.
    LOL
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I don't think I angrily demanded anything, ...
    I didn't say that.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The United States currently sets a different policy for each Nationality of immigrant.

    A man wishing to immigrate to the United States from Finland to be with his sister who is an american citizen for example only needs to fill out a form and enter.

    A man wishing to immigrate to the United States from Mexico or the Philippines to be with his sister who is a US Citizen has to fill out a form and enter his name on an 8 year waiting list.

    Forgive me if I dont share your sentiments about the fairness of the US Immigration policy.
    Well that's because there soooooooo many Fin's that want to come here. Duh!

    Thread Crapper
    ~ August 16,2005 Poll-Master ~
    August 17, 2005 Century Club Member ~ August 29, 2005

    I have a fondness for intelligence.
    I often black out when doing something really stupid. I supose that's why I'm such a danger to my self
    .



Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions